内镜采集大隐静脉在CABG术中的应用及组织学评估

目的观察冠状动脉旁路移植术(CABG)中应用内窥镜采集大隐静脉对减少下肢切口并发症的效果,并通过组织学改变评价其安全性。方法2003年8月至2005年8月对256例CABG病人使用Va-soView5内窥镜系统采集大隐静脉。对常规切开及内窥镜采集的大隐静脉各10例的静脉近端和远端4mm做光镜和电子显微镜检查。结果全组病人无皮肤切口感染、下肢水肿、淋巴管炎和脂肪坏死等并发症发生。平均获取大隐静脉桥血管2.2支,平均耗时(45±20)d。平均卧床2~3d。光镜和电子显微镜显示的大隐静脉组织学结构差异不显著。结论CABG应用内窥镜采集大隐静脉能够减少创伤,明显降低术后下肢并发症,尤其对肥胖、糖尿病病人可降低术后感染的发生率,减轻术后下肢切口疼痛,提高病人术后活动能力,减少卧床与住院时间。且内窥镜方法和切开法具有同样的安全性。     

使用不同移植物行选择性冠状静脉动脉化的中远期疗效观察

目的比较使用乳内动脉和大隐静脉作为桥血管行选择性冠状静脉动脉化搭桥治疗弥漫性右冠状动脉狭窄病变的中远期疗效。方法回顾性分析2003年1月至2012年12月在北京安贞医院行选择性冠状静脉动脉化搭桥75例患者的临床资料,其中术中使用大隐静脉作为桥血管进行心中静脉动脉化搭桥患者54例(大隐静脉桥组);使用乳内动脉作为桥血管进行心中静脉动脉化搭桥的患者21例(乳内动脉桥组)。于2013年11月随访患者的生存情况、近期心绞痛复发率、近期复查超声心动图和冠状动脉血管成像(CTA)等。结果乳内动脉桥组患者总生存率稍高于大隐静脉桥组(100.0%vs.83.3%),但生存曲线分析结果显示两组生存率差异无统计学意义(P=0.055)。部分患者复查CTA结果显示大隐静脉桥组患者(n=39)的桥血管和心中静脉均发生明显栓塞,而乳内动脉桥患者(n=18)的桥血管和心中静脉均有明显显影,保持通畅(P0.001)。两组患者心功能指标如左心室射血分数(LVEF)值均较术前明显增加,但两组差异无统计学意义。结论选择性冠状静脉动脉化搭桥术过程中,与大隐静脉桥相比,使用乳内动脉桥可以明显提高中远期桥血管和心中静脉的通畅率,是治疗弥漫性右冠状动脉狭窄病变的有效手段。     

内窥镜采集大隐静脉行冠状动脉旁路移植术1年随访

目的 总结应用内窥镜采集静脉(endoscopic vein harvesting,EVH)技术获取大隐静脉(greater saphenous vein,GSV)进行冠状动脉旁路移植手术(coronary artery bypass grafting,CABG)后1年随访结果,评估采用EVH技术的手术效果.方法 2009年5月至2010年5月,136例患者应用EVH取GSV进行的非体外循环冠状动脉旁路移植术(off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting,OPCABG),112例开放静脉获取术(open vein harvesting,OVH)取GSV进行的OPCABG.评估71例应用EVH和64例传统手术切口取GSV行OPCABG患者1年随访结果,比较两组患者手术情况、下肢切口并发症、1年后移植血管通畅率以及心理状况.结果 EVH组与OVH组比较,在创面大小、伤口恢复及美观化、伤口感染率、神经功能影响、二次清创缝合率以及下肢切口总体并发症发生率等方面具有明显优势.比较两组患者术后1年移植血管通畅率,EVH组动脉移植血管通畅率96.8％,静脉移植血管通畅率85.7％;OVH组动脉移植血管通畅率94.9％,静脉移植血管通畅率86.4％.两组随访结果中心绞痛再发率、动脉移植通畅率、静脉移植通畅率差异均无统计学意义.EVH组患者心理状况调查结果优于OVH组.结论 与常规OVH方法相比较,EVH技术对获取移植静脉具有更多优势,通过在采集前对患者进行部分肝素化等更具保护移植静脉材料的方法,EVH组也保持了满意的移植血管1年期通畅率.     

替格瑞洛与氯吡格雷对冠状动脉旁路移植术后桥血管通畅率影响的随机对照研究

目的比较阿司匹林联合替格瑞洛及阿司匹林联合氯吡格雷对冠状动脉旁路移植术(CABG)术后1年桥血管通畅情况的影响。方法将2014年1月至2017年9月于我科行CABG手术的67例患者(男52例、女15例)纳入此研究,将入组患者随机分为A组(阿司匹林+氯吡格雷)与B组(阿司匹林+替格瑞洛)。其中A组34例(男28例、女6例),B组33例(男24例、女9例)。术后1年行冠状动脉计算机断层扫描血管造影(CTA)检查,评估桥血管通畅性。并随访心血管事件、出血事件等不良事件发生情况。结果随访期间共4例患者失访,2例患者死亡。共计61例患者完成冠状动脉CTA检查,其中A组31例,B组30例。共计桥血管156支(胸廓内动脉桥59支,大隐静脉桥97支),其中A组79支(胸廓内动脉桥31支,大隐静脉桥48支),B组77支(胸廓内动脉桥28支,大隐静脉桥49支)。总桥血管通畅率及动脉桥血管通畅率方面组间差异无统计学意义[65/79(82.3%)vs. 71/77(92.2%);30/31(96.8%) vs. 27/28(96.4%),P0.05],而在静脉桥血管通畅率方面,A组通畅率显著低于B组[35/48 (72.9%) vs. 44/49(89.8%),P0.05]。Logistic回归分析提示阿司匹林+替格瑞洛双联抗血小板治疗可以降低桥血管狭窄风险[OR=0.282,95%CI(0.093,0.862),P0.05]。两组心血管事件、出血事件等不良事件发生情况差异无统计学意义。结论在CABG术后1年内,与氯吡格雷联合阿司匹林应用相比,替格瑞洛联合阿司匹林双联抗血小板治疗可能更好地降低静脉桥血管狭窄的风险,并未显著增加出血风险。     

不接触获取大隐静脉技术应用于冠状动脉旁路移植术的临床效果分析

目的 评价不接触获取大隐静脉技术(no-touch saphenous vein grafting, NT-SVG)与传统获取大隐静脉技术(conventional saphenous vein grafting, CV-SVG)应用于冠状动脉旁路移植术的效果。方法 2018年1月～2020年12月,应用NT-SVG或CV-SVG同期行CABG术的病人238例,NT-SVG组112例,CV-SVG组126例。比较两种获取方式术后并发症和大隐静脉桥血管通畅情况。结果 NT-SVG组术后3个月大隐静脉桥血管闭塞率为2.5%,CV-SVG组为6.5%,两组比较,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05),NT-SVG组术后12个月大隐静脉桥血管闭塞率为4.2%,CV-SVG组为9.0%,两组比较,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。NT-SVG组和CV-SVG组术后30天内死亡率分别为0.9%和0.8%,二次开胸止血率分别为0.9%和1.6%、心肌梗死率分别为0和0.8%,脑部并发症发生率分别为0.9%和0,肺部感染发生率分别为6.25%和6.3%,肾衰竭需要透析比例分别为1.8%和2.4%...     

内镜下与常规切开法采集大隐静脉在冠状动脉旁路移植术中应用的比较

目的探讨内镜下采集大隐静脉应用于冠状动脉旁路移植术(coronary artery bypass grafting,CABG)中的早期临床效果。方法2004年4月~2005年5月,对89例采用内镜下取大隐静脉行CABG(内镜组),在膝关节中部做2 cm切口,应用VasoV iew 5内镜血管采集系统游离获取大隐静脉,并与2003年4月~2005年3月38例采用传统切开法取大隐静脉行CABG(常规组)进行比较,比较2组术后下肢切口并发症、恢复行走时间、患肢疼痛麻木感及肿胀、术后6个月通畅率。结果内镜组取大隐静脉2~3支,平均2.6支;内镜组下肢并发症(6例)与常规组(8例)相比明显减少(2χ=4.197,P=0.040);内镜组患肢疼痛、麻木感7例及肿胀9例与常规组(分别为36、30例)相比明显减少(2χ=89.740,P=0.000;2χ=59.299;P=0.000);内镜组恢复行走时间(2.3±0.9)d比常规组(3.4±1.6)d明显缩短(t=-4.952,P=0.000);内镜组术后6个月通畅率96.0%(48/50)与常规组95.3%(19/20)相比无明显差别(2χ=0.000,P=1.000)。结论CABG中应用内镜下采集大隐静脉能够减少创伤,明显降低术后下肢并发症,减轻术后下肢切口疼痛。     

终末期肾病患者大隐静脉桥血管中细胞外基质相关基因表达的特点

目的探讨终末期肾病(ESRD)患者冠状动脉旁路移植术(CABG)前大隐静脉桥血管中细胞外基质(ECM)基因表达的特点。方法选择复旦大学附属中山医院自2004年7月至2010年12月期间收治的经冠状动脉造影明确诊断为冠心病患者68例进行研究,将68例患者按术前有无ESRD史,筛选出ESRD患者30例作为ESRD组(需维持性血液透析患者),38例无肾病史患者作为对照组。收集整理所有入选患者详细的术前临床资料;术中收集大隐静脉标本,以基因芯片、免疫组织化学和蛋白印迹法(Western blotting)阐明ESRD条件下CABG术前大隐静脉桥血管中细胞外基质基因表达的情况。结果两组术前临床资料除肾病相关数据外,其余临床资料差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。ESRD组患者CABG术前大隐静脉桥血管中细胞外基质相关基因表达上调3倍以上的基因有16个,而表达下调3倍以上的基因则有3个;ESRD组基质金属蛋白酶-2(MMP-2)、基质金属蛋白酶-9(MMP-9)活性较对照组升高(2.60±0.50 vs.0.70±0.16,1.80±0.40 vs.0.60±0.15,P<0.01),而组织型基质金属蛋白酶抑制剂-2(TIMP-2)和组织型基质金属蛋白酶抑制剂-3(TIMP-3)活性较对照组降低(0.60±0.19 vs.2.20±0.30,0.90±0.28vs.2.40±0.70,P<0.05)。结论与ESRD相关的多种心血管病危险因素,严重影响CABG术前大隐静脉桥血管中细胞外基质基因表达平衡,并且这种平衡的打破,有促进CABG术后静脉桥血管病变发生的危险。     

复合血管与倒置大隐静脉旁路移植治疗严重慢性下肢缺血的对比研究

目的比较复合血管序贯式下肢动脉旁路术和倒置自体大隐静脉旁路术治疗严重慢性下肢缺血的效果。方法回顾性分析采用复合式血管(25例)及倒置自体大隐静脉(16例)旁路移植术治疗的41例严重慢性下肢缺血患者的临床资料。复合血管用聚四氟乙烯(PTFE)人工血管及自体静脉组合而成。人工血管近心端与股总动脉吻合,远端与孤立腘动脉吻合;自体静脉从PTFE血管远端发出并与小腿的胫或腓动脉吻合。倒置自体大隐静脉旁路术采用同侧大隐静脉作为血管桥。比较两者血管桥的累积通畅率和保肢率。结果平均随访18.7个月。男29例,女12例。平均年龄(67±10.4)岁。FontaineⅢ级23例,FontaineⅣ级18例。复合血管组中自体静脉远端吻合口止于胫前动脉5例,胫后动脉14例,腓动脉6例;倒置大隐静脉移植组中10例吻合口止于胫后动脉,3例腓动脉,3例胫前动脉。复合血管组踝肱指数术前为0.24±0.14,术后为0.68±0.22(P=0.000)。倒置大隐静脉组平均踝肱指数术前为0.24±0.14,术后为0.68±0.22(P=0.000)。复合血管术后1,2,3年首次通畅率分别为78%,72%,61%;二期通畅率分别为83%,76%,6...     

内窥镜获取大隐静脉:技术、预后、思考与争议

移植血管的选择对冠状动脉旁路移植术(CABG)短期及远期预后有着重要意义。患者术后的平稳恢复,长期生活质量的改善以及避免二次干预都和冠状动脉血管桥的通畅密不可分。考虑到桥血管远期通畅率以及术后生存率,乳内动脉是CABG患者桥血管的首选。但是,当患者存在多根冠状动脉需要搭桥时,大隐静脉仍然被广泛应用。大隐静脉获取的传统方法是采用自脚踝至腹股沟开放切口,称为开放性大隐静脉获取术(OVH)。但是这样的取桥方法会引起腿部手术切口疼痛以及感染。此外,如此长的伤口会让患者感觉极不美观。切口相关并发症以及患者对美观的需求促使内窥镜大隐静脉获取术(EVH)的产生。对于OVH和EVH两种术式,既往的文献表明EVH可以减少切口相关并发症,满足患者的美观需求,缩短住院时间,并减轻术后切口的疼痛。尽管EVH具有上述已知的优点,但是也有报道认为内窥镜技术存在损伤静脉的风险,同时在静脉桥的通畅度以及临床预后等方面存在潜在的不利因素,这些都限制了EVH的广泛应用。本综述将对EVH的技术、预后、思考以及争议等方面进行详细的剖析。     

不接触技术对冠状动脉旁路移植术后静脉桥通畅率影响的进展

冠状动脉旁路移植术(coronary artery bypass grafting,CABG)是目前治疗冠心病的有效方法,但冠状动脉旁路移植术后有比较高的静脉桥闭塞率,严重影响CABG术后的近、远期临床治疗效果。静脉获取技术被认为是影响远期通畅率的一个重要因素。与开放性大隐静脉获取技术相比,不接触技术获取大隐静脉时保留了血管外膜以及血管周围组织,同时避免高压扩张静脉。使用不接触技术获取的静脉进行冠状动脉旁路移植术后,静脉桥取得了较好的近、远期通畅率,但效果还需要进一步的临床证实。     

The back-approach technique of endoscopic saphenous vein harvesting in coronary artery bypass grafting

PurposeOne of the concerns during endoscopic saphenous vein harvesting (EVH) in coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) is injury to the vein or its branches. The cutting edge of bipolar electrocautery scissors, used to divide the side branches of the saphenous vein, can cause vascular injury leading to reduced graft patency. We have developed a novel back-approach technique using a C-ring to divide the wide side branches of the saphenous vein during EVH. The aim of the study was to describe the technique and assess early outcomes of EVH using this technique. The back-approach technique is as follows: (a) insert the C-ring near the target branch, (b) push the C-ring over the proximal aspect of the target branch, (c) twist the C-ring forward to capture the target branch, and (d) cut the target branch by bipolar electrocautery.MethodsWe investigated 169 patients, including 35 women (mean age 70.1 ± 8.9 years), who underwent CABG at our hospital, using a novel EVH technique. The patients were categorized as those who underwent EVH (EVH group, n = 44) or open vein harvesting (OVH) (OVH group, n = 125). This method involves the creation of a small incision (2 cm), sufficient saphenous vein dissection near the skin incision, adequate dissection to separate the vein from the surrounding tissues, and the back-approach technique with C-ring to divide the side branch of the saphenous vein. The primary endpoint was the graft patency rate, and the secondary endpoints were leg wound complications and length of hospitalization.ResultsNo significant intergroup difference was observed in early patency of saphenous vein graft patency (OVH vs. EVH = 94.7 vs. 95.6%, p = 0.763). The incidence of lower extremity wound lymphorrhea was significantly lesser (OVH: EVH = 16.0: 0.0%, p = 0.005) and the length of hospitalization was also significantly shorter in the EVH group (OVH vs. EVH = 24.2 ± 9.8 vs. 19.0 ± 5.3 days, p = 0.001).ConclusionsEVH, using the back-approach technique, showed satisfactory short-term results; therefore, this technique performed with C-ring might be effective for vein harvesting during EVH.     

Improved Leg Wound Healing with Endoscopic Saphenous Vein Harvest in Coronary Artery Bypass Graft Surgery: A Prospective Randomized Study in Asian Population

Abstract Objective: Conventional open saphenous vein harvest (OVH) for coronary artery bypass graft surgery is often associated with significant pain and morbidity. This study aims to determine whether endoscopic saphenous vein harvest (EVH) reduces leg wound morbidity and improves patient satisfaction as compared to OVH in Asian population. Methods: Between March 2005 and June 2006, 120 patients who underwent isolated CABG were prospectively randomized into EVH (n = 60) and OVH (n = 60) groups. VirtuoSaph? (Terumo Cardiovascular Corp., Ann Arbor, MI, USA) harvesting system was used for EVH. We analyzed leg wound complications (ASEPSIS score), postoperative pain, satisfaction, and clinical outcomes. Fisher's exact test and Mann‐Whitney U test were used for categorical and continuous variables analysis respectively. Results: Six patients in the EVH group required conversion to open technique. Both groups had matched demographic characteristics and risk factors. Mean numbers of grafts performed were 3.2 ± 0.6 (EVH n = 54) and 3.0 ± 0.7 (OVH n = 60) (p = 0.03). ASEPSIS scores at postoperation days three, seven, and 21 were significantly lower in the EVH group than the OVH group (p = 0.02, p = 0.002 and p = 0.01, respectively). Wound pain scores at postoperative days three, seven, and 21 were significantly lower in the EVH group (p = 0.000, p = 0.001 and p = 0.000 respectively). Wound numbness was found in 5.7% of the EVH group and 33.3% of the OVH group patients (p = 0.01). [Six patients required conversion to open technique.] There was one hospital mortality (OVH group) and major postoperative complications were not significantly different between the groups. Conclusion: EVH system is a safe and effective alternative to OVH with better wound healing, reduced postoperative pain, and wound numbness. However, the higher conversion rate to OVH in Asian patients requires further evaluation.     

Endoscopic versus open saphenous vein harvest for femoral to below the knee arterial bypass using saphenous vein graft

BACKGROUND: Although the use of endoscopic vein harvest (EVH) in coronary artery bypass grafting is accepted, few studies have documented the implementation of EVH in peripheral vascular disease surgery. We hypothesized that EVH improves outcomes compared with open vein harvest (OVH) in patients undergoing femoral to below the knee arterial bypass surgery. METHODS: The charts of 144 consecutive patients undergoing infrainguinal bypass surgery over the course of 27 months were reviewed. A femoral to below the knee arterial bypass with saphenous vein was done in 88 patients (29 had EVH, 59 had OVH). The preoperative characteristics evaluated were age, gender, renal function, history of diabetes, hypertension, tobacco use, and previous infrainguinal bypass surgery on the affected side. End points included wound complications, length of hospital stay, operative time, angiographic and operative interventions for graft occlusion, patency rates, limb salvage, acute renal failure, myocardial infarction, and death. RESULTS: Patient characteristics and demographics were similar in the EVH and OVH groups. No operative intervention for occlusion was required in the EVH group (0/29) compared with 13.4% in the OVH group (8/59) (P = .03). At the mean follow-up time of 21 months, primary patency rate was 92.8% in the EVH group and 80.6% in the OVH group (P = .12). No significant differences were found between the EVH and OVH groups in postoperative complications, length of hospital stay, operative time, patency rates, limb salvage, and death. CONCLUSION: Despite our initial concerns of damaging the venous conduit with a minimally invasive approach to saphenous vein harvest, EVH in our experience has resulted in a trend toward improved patency rates and decreased infectious wound complications while affording the benefit of improved cosmesis. An endoscopic approach results in smaller incisions, decreased interventions for occlusion, and improved outcomes compared with OVH. EVH is the procedure of choice for harvesting saphenous vein for femoral to below the knee arterial bypass surgery.     

糖尿病患者行冠状动脉旁路移植术中应用腔镜采集大隐静脉的临床研究

目的探讨腔镜大隐静脉采集法(endoscopic vein harvesting,EVH)对糖尿病患者行冠状动脉旁路移植术(CABG)后恢复和桥血管再狭窄的影响。方法采用非随机临床对照研究的方法,纳入2010年12月至2012年2月华西医院行冠状动脉旁路移植术合并2型糖尿病的患者,按所采用的静脉桥血管采集方式,将患者分为腔镜大隐静脉采集法(EVH)组和开放大隐静脉采集法(CVH)组,评价两组患者围手术期并发症情况。随访期间采用介入或CT冠状动脉造影评价桥血管再狭窄情况。结果共纳入51例患者,其中EVH组24例,CVH组27例。两组患者年龄、体重、基础病变程度差异均无统计学意义。两组术中体外循环时间和主动脉阻断时间差异均无统计学意义[(67.2±9.8)min vs.(68.3±14.5)min,P>0.05;(62.4±11.3)min vs.(65.2±10.3)min,P>0.05]。两组患者术后主要并发症发生率差异无统计学意义。与CVH比较,EVH能显著缩短桥血管采集时间[(35.6±6.4)minvs.(45.2±11.4)min,P<0.05],降低腿部切口延迟愈合发生率[0.0%(0/24)vs.18.5%(5/27),P<0.05]。CVH组随访9.1个月,EVH组随访9.4个月。随访期间两组并发症(胸痛、大隐静脉再狭窄)发生率差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。结论对于合并糖尿病行CABG的患者,EVH是一种安全有效、微创快速的桥血管采集方法。     

冠状动脉旁路移植手术中内镜获取与切开获取大隐静脉对照研究的meta分析

目的探讨冠状动脉旁路移植手术中内镜获取大隐静脉与常规切开获取大隐静脉相比是否具有优越性。方法检索2003—2013年国内外关于内镜获取大隐静脉（endoscopic vein harvesting,EVH）与常规切开获取大隐静脉（open vein harvesting,OVH）手术后疗效的临床对比研究,收集相关数据并用RevMan5．0统计软件进行meta分析。结果检索并纳入本次研究的文献共6篇,其中EVH组339例,OVH组344例。meta分析结果示：术后伤口感染、愈合不良在EVH组的发生率较OVH组显著减少（P〈0．05）,术后下肢伤口疼痛程度EVH组显著低于OVH组（P〈0．05）,血肿的发生率在EVH组与OVH组间并无统计学差异（P〉0．05）,EVH获取的静脉桥和OVH获取的静脉桥近期通畅率无显著差异（P〉0．05）。结论和OVH相比,EVH技术切口美观,能在不影响静脉桥的近期通畅率前提下显著降低术后下肢伤口疼痛、愈合不良等并发症,提高患者满意度。     

内窥镜血管采集系统和间断小切口获取大隐静脉在冠状动脉旁路移植术的应用研究

目的比较内窥镜和间断小切口获取大隐静脉在冠状动脉旁路移植术（coronary artery bypass graft,CABG）中应用的临床效果。方法 2009年8月～2012年8月,连续651例CABG术中,479例（A组）采用内窥镜血管采集系统,172例（B组）采用间断小切口获取大隐静脉,方法由患者决定。比较两组大隐静脉获取时间、切口长度和术后腿部并发症情况。结果 2组获取大隐静脉均获成功,静脉长度差异无显著性。与B组相比,A组获取静脉时间短[（18.01±3.49）min vs.（27.06±4.26）min,t=-27.417,P=0.000],皮肤切口长度短[（3.49±0.87）cm vs.（12.53±1.41）cm,t=-97.587,P=0.000],术后需要止痛剂、切口愈合延迟、下肢水肿的比例低[2.9%（14/479）vs.37.8%（65/172）,χ2=144.303,P=0.000;0（0/479）vs.5.8%（10/172）,P=0.000;1.0%（5/479）vs.18.0%（31/172）,χ2=69.526,P=0.000],但总住院费用高[（8.54±1.43）万元vs.（6.45±0.91）万元,t=17.893,P=0.000]。结论内窥镜血管采集系统获取大隐静脉安全可行,并发症少,美容效果显著,值得推广。     

Endoscopic greater saphenous vein harvesting reduces the morbidity of coronary artery bypass surgery

BACKGROUND: Most coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) operations still involve the use of greater saphenous vein (GSV) for one or more grafts, even with the increasing use of arterial conduits for coronary revascularization. Wound complications from GSV harvesting are common, and sometimes severe. In order to reduce the morbidity of this procedure, we adopted a technique of endoscopic vein harvesting (EVH). EVH allows nearly complete harvest of the GSV, with excellent visualization, through minimal incisions. At our institution, a physician's assistant routinely performs EVH, usually while a cardiothoracic surgeon harvests an arterial conduit. In 1997, all GSV harvesting was performed by open technique. During a transition period in 1998 and 1999 we used several different endoscopic techniques. By the beginning of 2000, our technique of EVH was standardized and used routinely. METHODS: To determine whether EVH reduced the morbidity associated with conventional open vein harvesting (OVH), we reviewed the charts of all patients having primary coronary artery bypass operations utilizing GSV during the years 1997 and 2000. RESULTS: The two groups were comparable in risk factors for leg incision complications. The year 2000 EVH group had a marked reduction in the number of wound complications compared with the year 1997 OVH group (7.1% versus 26.1%, P < 0.00001). There were no significant differences between the two groups in total operative time (OVH 224 minutes, EVH 223 minutes, number of distal coronary anastomoses (OVH 3.38 +/- 0.90, EVH 3.38 +/- 0.94), or the rate of clinically apparent early graft failure. There was a significant increase in the use of sequential grafting techniques in the 2000 group (OVH 21.9%, EVH 43.6%, P < 0.00001). CONCLUSIONS: EVH reduced the morbidity associated with GSV harvesting. EVH was associated with an increased use of sequential coronary grafting techniques. EVH does not prolong operative time when performed by experienced personnel. We believe EVH should become the standard of care.     

Endoscopic vs Open Vein Harvest in Drug-Eluting Stents or Bypass Surgery for Left Main Disease Trial

BackgroundWe investigated outcomes of coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) with endoscopic vein harvest (EVH) vs open vein harvest (OVH) within the Evaluation of XIENCE Versus CABG (EXCEL) trial.MethodsAll patients in EXCEL randomized to CABG were included in this study. For this analysis, the primary end points were ischemia-driven revascularization (IDR) and graft stenosis or occlusion at 5 years. Additional end points were as follows: a composite of death from any cause, stroke, or myocardial infarction; bleeding; blood product transfusion; major arrhythmia; and infection requiring antibiotics. Event rates were based on Kaplan-Meier estimates in time-to-first-event analyses.ResultsOf the 957 patients randomized to CABG, 686 (71.7%) received at least 1 venous graft with 257 (37.5%) patients in the EVH group and 429 (62.5%) patients in the OVH group. At 5 years, IDR was higher (11.5% vs 6.7%; P = .047) in the EVH group. At 5 years, rates of graft stenosis or occlusion (9.7% vs 5.4%; P = .054) and the primary end point (17.4% vs 20.9%; P = .27) were similar. In-hospital bleeding (11.3% vs 13.8%; P = .35), in-hospital blood product transfusion (12.8% vs 13.1%; P = .94), and infection requiring antibiotics within 1 month (13.6% vs 16.8%; P = .27) were similar between EVH and OVH patients. Major arrhythmia in the hospital (19.8% vs 13.5%; P = .03) and within 1 month (21.8% vs 15.4%; P = .03) was higher in EVH patients.ConclusionsIDR at 5 years was higher in the EVH group. EVH and OVH patients had similar rates of graft stenosis or occlusion and the composite of death, stroke, or myocardial infarction at 5 years.     

Endoscopic vs open saphenous vein harvest for coronary artery bypass grafting: a prospective randomized trial

OBJECTIVE: Endoscopic saphenous vein harvesting (EVH) for coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) has been developed to reduce leg wound morbidity and improve patient satisfaction. Choosing between EVH of a short vein segment from the thigh and open venous harvesting (OVH) of a short segment from the calf represents a clinical dilemma as EVH is easiest to perform from the thigh and OVH is easiest to perform from the calf. The purpose of this study was to investigate whether leg wound morbidity was reduced after EVH of a short vein segment from the thigh compared with OVH from the calf. Secondly we investigated whether EVH would reduce length of hospital stay and improve cosmetic results. METHODS: From April 2004 to June 2007, 132 patients undergoing elective isolated CABG were randomized to have a short segment of saphenous vein harvested either by the EVH or OVH technique. Clinical follow-up was scheduled at day 5 and at 1 month. Primary end-points included wound morbidity. Secondary end-points included harvest time, length of hospital stay, cosmetic results and need for additional wound care after discharge. RESULTS: The groups were preoperative similar. Three patients in the OVH group were excluded from the study as it became apparent that it was necessary to extend the incision beyond the knee. Harvest time was longer for the EVH group, but these patients suffered from significantly fewer cases of infectious and non-infective wound complications, with a substantial reduction in the need for post-discharge leg wound care. The purulent infection rates in the EVH and OVH groups were 0% and 11%, respectively. The overall leg wound morbidity rates regarding cellulitis, purulent infection, dehiscence and skin necrosis were 3% and 27% in the EVH and OVH groups, respectively (p<0.001). The length of hospital stay was similar. The conversion rate from EVH to OVH was 14%. The EVH group experienced less pain and better cosmetic results. CONCLUSIONS: EVH of a short vein segment from the thigh results in less wound morbidity and better cosmetic results compared with OVH of a short vein segment from the calf.     

Benefits of Endoscopic Vein Harvesting

The purpose of this study was to evaluate and compare the benefits of endoscopic saphenous vein harvesting (EVH) with the traditional incision technique (TIT) for coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) in respect to the technical procedure and clinical outcome. In a prospective nonrandomized, case-matched study the greater saphenous vein was harvested for CABG in 22 patients using the endoscopic technique and in 18 patients with the traditional method. Comparisons were made for the operating time, length of incision and vein harvested, graft quality, postoperative complications, and pain assessment. Patient demographics were well matched. EVH required smaller incisions than did the TIT (10.5 ± 6.6 vs. 31.2 ± 7.8 cm, respectively; p < 0.0001). Harvest time and vein quality were comparable in the two groups. Total vein operating time was shorter following the endoscopic technique (60 ± 24 vs. 100 ± 35 minutes, respectively; p < 0.0001). EVH had fewer complications (NS), and postoperative pain was significantly less (p= 0.0034). The major advantages of endoscopic vein harvesting are a significant reduction of postoperative pain and strikingly better cosmetic results. Wound complications seem to be less frequent.